lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 27 Apr 2018 07:14:16 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <>
To:     Joseph Qi <>
Cc:     linux-block <>,
        Jens Axboe <>, Shaohua Li <>,
        Mark Brown <>,
        Linus Walleij <>,
        Ulf Hansson <>,
        LKML <>, Tejun Heo <>,
        'Paolo Valente' via bfq-iosched 
Subject: Re: testing io.low limit for blk-throttle

> Il giorno 27 apr 2018, alle ore 05:27, Joseph Qi <> ha scritto:
> Hi Paolo,
> On 18/4/27 01:27, Paolo Valente wrote:
>>> Il giorno 25 apr 2018, alle ore 14:13, Joseph Qi <> ha scritto:
>>> Hi Paolo,
>> Hi Joseph
>>> ...
>>> Could you run blktrace as well when testing your case? There are several
>>> throtl traces to help analyze whether it is caused by frequently
>>> upgrade/downgrade.
>> Certainly.  You can find a trace attached.  Unfortunately, I'm not
>> familiar with the internals of blk-throttle and low limit, so, if you
>> want me to analyze the trace, give me some hints on what I have to
>> look for.  Otherwise, I'll be happy to learn from your analysis.
> I've taken a glance at your blktrace attached. It is only upgrade at first and
> then downgrade (just adjust limit, not to LIMIT_LOW) frequently.
> But I don't know why it always thinks throttle group is not idle.
> For example:
> fio-2336  [004] d...   428.458249:   8,16   m   N throtl avg_idle=90, idle_threshold=1000, bad_bio=10, total_bio=84, is_idle=0, scale=9
> fio-2336  [004] d...   428.458251:   8,16   m   N throtl downgrade, scale 4
> In throtl_tg_is_idle():
> is_idle = ... ||
> 	(tg->latency_target && tg->bio_cnt &&
> 	 tg->bad_bio_cnt * 5 < tg->bio_cnt);
> It should be idle and allow run more bandwidth. But here the result shows not
> idle (is_idle=0). I have to do more investigation to figure it out why. 

Hi Joseph,
actually this doesn't surprise me much, for this scenario I expected
exactly that blk-throttle would have considered the random-I/O group,
for most of the time,
1) non idle,
2) above the 100usec target latency, and
3) below low limit,

In fact,
1) The group can evidently issue I/O at a much higher rate than that
received, so, immediately after its last pending I/O has been served,
the group issues new I/O; in the end, it is is non idle most of the
2) To try to enforce the 10MB/s limit, blk-throttle necessarily makes
the group oscillate around 10MB/s, which means that the group is
frequently below limit (this would not have held only if the group had
actually received much more than 10MB/s, but it is not so)
3) For each of the 4k random I/Os of the group, the time needed by the
drive to serve that I/O is already around 40-50usec.  So, since the
group is of course not constantly in service, it is very easy that,
because of throttling, the latency of most I/Os of the group goes
beyond 100usec.

But, as it is often the case for me, I might have simply misunderstood
blk-throttle parameters, and I might be just wrong here.


> You can also filter these logs using:
> grep throtl trace | grep -E 'upgrade|downgrade|is_idle'
> Thanks,
> Joseph

Powered by blists - more mailing lists